Debates pt II: Vice Presidents

Edwards got absolutely destroyed.

I had no idea Cheney was such a beast in the debate room. Damn.

__________________
Horror's Not Dead
Latest Movie Review(s): Too lazy to keep this up to date. New reviews every week.

I'm from Cleveland (well actually, a suburb of) and I must say the Republican's totally dominated. Edwards screwed up some, but both brought up good points and had good defensive come backs and arguements. Definently better than Bush's and Kerry's by far I must say.

__________________
Everything I do, I do to make my second stepdad proud.

Wow. This was A LOT better then the Presys. ****, at times I thought they'd throw on boxing gloves or something. It was pretty intense, both of them shot some accurate shots and made the other shut up.

I liked Edwards charisma though...he stood out, over the depressed-look, dull Cheney. Cheney, also, went onto some important facts regarding Edwards comittment. Edwards shot back by showing that there is really no coalition, and its pretty much the states. Cheney then forwarded THAT to casualties, and Edwards shot back with his 90% figures of the deaths.

I look at it 50/50. Cheney brought up the good points, but he kept going on and on with the reports.

http://costofwar.com/

I don't know how accurate it is. For all I know, it could just be a friggin clock started at 87 bill.

I think they both brought up some very solid points, but I think all of Edwards' were just eclipsed by Cheney's far superior stance as an incredibly commanding speaker. I was more than impressed and I'm greatly opposed to the Republican ideals these days.

Cheney, regardless of physical appearance, was a machine in that debate. He almost made me want to vote for Bush. Then I remembered Bush is turd.

Also, did Cheney remind anyone else of the head of Monster's Inc? I was shocked when he actually stood up from behind that desk at the end instead of scuttling away on crab legs.

Yeah, that was brutal. I almost felt like giving Edwards a hug. He's only served part of one term in the U.S. Senate, and he had to go toe-to-toe with Cheney, who's been in this game for decades.

The funny thing is, Edwards is way ahead in virtually every online poll being conducted on the major news sites. I wonder if this page on the Democratic National Committee's website has anything to do with it? Quote:

A message like that is preaching to the choir, those people would have voted in those polls anyway.

I dunno about that. They'd VOTE for Kerry/Edwards anyway (or "Kedwards," as James Taranto likes to call them), but I don't know that many of them would make some kind of special effort to effect post-debate spin. Given that Cheney won so definitively, yet Edwards is dominating the online polls, it seems pretty likely to me that the orchestrated attempt to effect the online polling is having an effect. Why else would there be such an incredible gap between the actual debate, and the online results?

Because I think you and I were more so taken with the rationality of what a debate entails and not concerned with the latent functions of one.

Godsend's post proves it. I didn't think it was possible to take a stance that Edwards came out as anything above Kerry's hyper shadow, yet he made a perfectly reasonable claim about it.

Cheney was solid, which is what we need in the White House. Edwards, who did do well in this debate, just does not seem well...solid. His closing speech seemed IMO a bit contrived, and yes I know most things said in debates are contrived, but that was a bit too much for me. The glow of the TV set etc.etc.etc. bleh..

__________________

“The gladdest moment in human life, methinks, is a departure into unknown lands.” – Sir Richard Burton

That's a good point. You and I might be placing a greater premium on substance than others who were watching. I don't think Godsend is "perfectly reasonable" in giving such an enormous edge to mere "charisma," (which, frankly, I didn't think Cheney was lacking in, really. He drew a few laughs) but you're right in that we could be using a different measuring stick than some others.

I can understand that people would want charismatic government representitives who are attractive and project for America an image of vitality, so I can respect his admiring Edwards' charisma, but yes I do agree with you that that is in no way a reason to declare Edwards the winner when he so blatantly wasn't.

Cheney was like a robot. Like supercomputer!

I can't vouch if the statstics he constantly poured out of his mouth were indeed true, but he stated them with such convinction that I would have been a believer if I didn't know all politicians lie. Cheney was incredible at making every single thing he said sound like it was not up for debate at all, that it was a simple fact of the universe and he was almost insulted that he was being questioned about it. That is how you ****in' debate.

Plus Cheney was in Die Hard with a Vengeance, that gives him a +10 to badassness right there.

The debate still didn't sway my vote towards Bush, but I can respect the machine that was Cheney during that beating. Maybe I was just relating to his pacemaker though.

The debate was going on while I was getting my beauty sleep so I haven't seen it yet. But this thread is incredibly interesting anyway.

The swedish news site that I visit the most has a completely different opinion than you guys. They say that the debate was a disappointment because it never created the tension that was expected between these two debaters. They also said that it was impossible to select a winner and that it was pretty much a tie.

The news site I am talking about is www.dn.se and it is the site of Sweden's largest and most important morning paper, the liberal independent Dagens Nyheter (liberal in Sweden means right wing). It's interesting because after the first Kerry/Bush debate they said that it was also hard to select a winner but they gave Kerry the advantage. And that debate I thought Kerry won without a doubt.

__________________
The novelist does not long to see the lion eat grass. He realizes that one and the same God created the wolf and the lamb, then smiled, "seeing that his work was good".

--------

They had temporarily escaped the factories, the warehouses, the slaughterhouses, the car washes - they'd be back in captivity the next day but now they were out - they were wild with freedom. They weren't thinking about the slavery of poverty. Or the slavery of welfare and food stamps. The rest of us would be all right until the poor learned how to make atom bombs in their basements.

Awe man... You telling me I missed it?? Damn...

__________________
We are the future, the 21st. century dyslexic, glue sniffing, cybersluts with homicidal minds and handguns... we are the same.

Thanks for pointing that out Pid, I find that incredibly fascinating.

As against Republicans in the White House as I am, I just don't see how anyone could think that debate was a tie. I was watching the debate with my friend Mark who has very similiar political views to mine and we both thought Cheney killed it. I don't get it.

I can't add much depth to this topic, but I'd like to point out that Cheney completely blew Edwards away.

Attachments

 

I definately didn't see the debate as a draw. Cheney was very impressive. He was confident and strong. I found myself wishing he were running for president. Edwards was ok, but he seemed to rehash his words/issues alot...and if I remember correctly, even the moderator pointed out at one point that Edwards didn't answer her question.

Whatever magic Edwards was trying for last night didn't work for me. Cheney's the man!

The debate made Edwards look like a child compared to Cheney. I'd be one frightened little girl to go up against Cheney in a debate. The man does his homework! He's a machine. I like how Edwards was reduced to pointing at Cheney and basicly doin' a "he started it!"
What a baby. Cheney kicked ass.

__________________
Ya got me feelin' hella good so let's just keep on dancin'

I watched it on CNN and one of the commentators pointed out that Cheney's voice is "like a sedative". It really is. Listening to him talk was like having cough syrup poured directly into my brain. It was incredibly seductive. I imagine Joesph Goebbels spoke in much of the same manner.

I too wish he were running for president simply because he seems far more capable of making important decisions than Bush does...well anyone does. But he still stands for many, many things I am against and could thus never bring myself to vote for him regardless of how seductive of a speaker he is. Hell, he supports a constitutional ammendment to ban same sex marriages while admiting that he is morally against it.

Morally against the ban or morally against same sex marriages?